Main Karma Houdini Discussion

Could it be splitted between actively avoiding karma because of planning, skills or victorious challenge (the true "Houdini") and avoiding karma only because the chance never occurred, someone else grant him the avoidance or even luck (not a true conjurer, more a Karma Jumper I would say)?
i.e. the assassin manages to destroy all the evidence and gets another guy framed while all witnesses are slain by him, so he walks away whistling, or he is discovered by the police but escapes from a secret passage to never be seen again, this is a true Karma Houdini who tricks his deserved fate... but if the weapon with his fingerprints is lost in the dump by a moron detective, or is stolen by a criminal who didn't know, or is dropped in the sea during a fight without anybody noticing, it's due to someone else, it's luck for his side.

I'm starting to think that people misuse this trope a lot to the point that if you ever do something perceived by the fans as bad and then you didn't die because of it, then you are a Karma Houdini. Never mind if you felt horrible about it, never mind if you made up some of it, you did one bad thing and then you deserve a Karmic Death, otherwise you're a Karma Houdini.

What the hell? Since when we try to act like Gods and decide what's bad, what's good, what deserves punishment and what doesn't?

Although Fast Eddie overrode lu127's decision to make Karma Houdini villain-only, is it okay if we still cut or rewrite the examples of complaining about characters not getting adeqate comeback. Some of the "crimes" that tropers write are petty.

For example: someone wrote that the Cutie Mark Crusaders got away with getting into a fight that freed Discord.

Granted they were wrong, but they didn't intentionally do anything bad. Plus, they also had to write an essay, which is an adequate punishment.

Larkmarn

06:01:54 AM Apr 19th 2013

Yes. Still cut non-examples, especially ones where they actually GET punished.

I've seen people post Karma Houdini for characters that were killed for their actions. It's silly.

MSCC93

09:30:00 AM Apr 19th 2013

I agree..it's no wonder the decision was made in the first place. Some tropers just misuse Karma Houdini, really. Some of the examples usually qualify for Idiot Houdini, really.

ShorinBJ

12:56:38 AM Sep 17th 2013

I think examples should not be posted for a series of any kind until it's over. The point of a Karma Houdini is that as far as canon goes, the Houdini was never punished and never will be. You can't know whether they qualify until the story is finished.

Since the current ruling seems to be that a character does not need to be a villain to qualify as a Karma Houdini, I decided to rewrite the list of reasons why a character might be spared from karma to take this into account (the old list was getting a bit bloated anyway). If no one minds, I'll put this on the Analysis page rather than the main page, but I decided to vet it here to make sure it was okay first. If it would be problematic, let me know.

In fiction, like in Real Life, people don't always get what they deserve. So how does a Karma Houdini happen? How does such a black-hearted scoundrel, or hero who has gone a little too close to the edge, get away with it all? There could be a number of reasons.

Redemption Is Cheap - It's all well and good for a villain to see the light and change sides, but once that switch is flipped it's all too easy to forget about all the mayhem he caused before that moment (especially if the victims weren't named characters). Even if Redemption Equals Death, one heroic act at the end isn't enough to make up for a long career of dog football.

But What About That Guy? - The Sorting Algorithm of Evil, and the story, has left the villain behind, and a much larger threat has taken over. Once the heroes have dealt with Entropus the Destroyer of Worlds, sometimes the story forgets that there's still an Evil Emperor ruling his kingdom with an iron fist.

Horrible History - The story is based on a true story, where the antagonists were never brought to justice. If the writers care at all about historical accuracy, the villain will be a Karma Houdini by default.

Executive Meddling - In some very rare cases, the author/filmmaker does write an appropriately grim death scene for the villainous character, but Executive Meddling determines that it's too gruesome, hurts the flow of the narrative, makes the movie run on too long, and so forth.

Slipped the Sequel Hook - The writer may have left the villain alone so that he could return to cause more mayhem in a future sequel (and hopefully recieve his just desserts then). But sometimes the sequel never gets made, for anynumberof reasons...

Sequel Blues - ...Or the villain paid the piper in the previous outing. However, now he's back for the sequel, or another author or franchise has decided to bring him back for more.

Prequel Blues - Even if the villain was defeated in the first outing, the creation of a prequel means that the villain has to survive the events of the prequel. And many times, the situation at the start of the original implies that the antagonist will win...

The Untouchable - The villain is simply too powerful for the heroes to handle. This tends to be the case in stories where the heroes are simply ordinary people thrown into a bad situation beyond their control; the best they can do is survive the story.

NON-VILLAINS:

Not My Enemy, Not My Problem - The character in question was never an enemy of the heroes. No matter what reprehensible things they might have done in the past, they have no reason to punish him for those.

Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind - The character may have done all sorts of horrible things in the past, but he's not doing them now, is he? If the audience doesn't see an event happen, it's all too easy to forget. The Retired Monster often falls under this.

About the What Did I Do example: Moral Dissonance is when a character contradicts their own stated morals and it is not noted in the own work, not when it contradicts the morals of the audience(Values Dissonance means that the morals of the character are different that the morals of modern audiences).

Looks like there's no objections. The above list is now available for viewing and editing on the Analysis tab of Karma Houdini. Hopefully it won't get too bloated this time.

Edit(in response to below statement): Perhaps it's a bit too soon to say (though there weren't any responses in a couple of days). But, if there are any objections, feel free to voice them anyway and we can decide what needs to be fixed or removed.

Larkmarn

06:44:40 AM Apr 11th 2013edited by Larkmarn

While I really like your list and don't think there would be any objection, I think two days is a bit short to declare that there aren't any objections. Just saying.

That said, the way you were going about it was all wrong. At best the previous description merely implied that the trope was villain only. It's never explicitly stated and as such a lot of people don't realize it. When they then post their example only to be jumped on they feel victimized. The fact that there are so many people on this discussion page complaining about it should be proof of that.

So, in order to try and fix this issue, I put a big bold-faced note on the main trope page in order to make it absolutely clear that this trope is villain only.

Knight9910

12:09:07 PM Mar 23rd 2013edited by Knight9910

Also thinking, maybe we should put such a note on all the example pages too?

EDIT: Done.

Knight9910

12:34:52 PM Mar 23rd 2013edited by Knight9910

I was going to say we should allow non-villain examples, but actually I think it' better, for a certain definition of villain. That is to say, if we define villain as "an evil character, whether the show classifies them as such or not" as opposed to just "an antagonist."

So yeah, it's fine, but we did still really need a notice.

ading

05:10:50 AM Apr 7th 2013

It's generally expected that the villain gets punished and the hero doesn't. Villains not getting punished is therefore trope-worthy, while heroes not getting punished isn't.

azul120

12:04:48 PM Apr 8th 2013

Why then are heroes subject to What the Hell, Hero? when they are called on something? Not to mention anti-heroic types.

Here's the thing: karma as a concept isn't exclusive to villains.

MagBas

01:23:53 PM Apr 8th 2013edited by MagBas

Evil acts being noted is not the same thing than evil acts being punished.

azul120

10:45:39 PM Apr 8th 2013

That's what this trope is about. And even the good guys do unscrupulous things.

This trope not applying to non-villains make no sense. Is it not supposed to mean lack of punishment for reprehensible things?

MagBas

03:16:53 PM Dec 30th 2012

The reasoning of lu127 when they closed the trope repair shop thread in their 19 December post was: "No, what really needs to be done is ignore this crowner, because the idea is only a gate for people to complain about characters they don't like not getting adequate comeback.

Karma Houdini can just stay as applying to villanis. I'll remove the non-villainous examples."

ading

04:46:15 PM Apr 2nd 2013

The thing is, we expect to see the villain punished and the hero rewarded. A hero not getting punished would be People Sit on Chairs.

azul120

12:01:03 PM Apr 8th 2013

No. A hero not getting punished would be along the lines of a Designated Hero.

People Sit on Chairs is not something that the audience expects, but yes, quoting the own People Sit on Chairs page, "People Sit On Chairs don't convey any meaning — they aren't storytelling conventions at all, they're just things that happen normally or incidentally during the storytelling."

Hi there. I'm a current troper here at TV Tropes, and I would like to add in something of an algorithm test to help people understand if the Karma Houdini the work they are interested in are of the kind the cast and its innocents are suffering from, so that their minds do not break solely on Grimdark Apathy Syndrome, because that sucks balls.

Problem is, where could I post this test at? Thank you for replying and see you later.

Does tsundere violence(IE Love Hina) ever count for this trope? I would think that slapstick damage that doesn't even stay is just a form of comedy, and this trope actually refers to legit evasion of (viewer perceived) justice..

Does it count as a Karma Houdini if a character is not shown being punished, but it is assumed that they will be?

I was wondering this after seeing this trope mentioned in the Headscratchers page for The Iron Giant.

To be specific, in that film, Mansley orders a nuclear missile to be launched into the middle of a crowded town, right in front of the general. I'd assume he was arrested after that, but it isn't explicitly shown.

sandacapo

09:15:49 PM Nov 9th 2011

I do believe that there should be some real life examples like that police officer who ate some confiscated marijuana brownies, called 911 because he thought he was dying, and got a slap on the wrists. He can actually get a job as an officer in another jurisdiction.

I believe Karma Houdini should be renamed to show that only villains fit this trope. I recently included Arthur's D.W. on this list not knowing this only applied to villains. The name Karma Houdini just doesn't say that.

MrDeath

08:50:07 AM Jul 7th 2011

That's why you should read the trope's description instead of just the name.

What happened to the Real Life section of Karma Houdini? Where did it go?

MagBas

05:46:49 PM May 10th 2011

Received a cut request by Iaculus in 30 April with "Seems like exactly the sort of trope where a Real Life section is only going to cause trouble." as cut reason. The article was cut.

ading

11:35:08 AM May 15th 2011

But it wasn't causing trouble. So why should it be removed on those grounds?

captainmarkle

02:53:55 PM Aug 6th 2011

It wasn't, I agree with above troper. However, (Probably) there was too much debate on what was and wasn't karma. For example escaped Nazi war criminals may have avoided Nuremberg but probably lived in eternal fear of the soldiers of their enemies coming after them.

Is there a similar trope for heroes? As in, the hero escapes karmic punishment?

MagBas

06:35:52 AM Apr 3rd 2011

No, not exists. And, considering that the motive to this page be created was because "villains be punished" is a Omnipresent Trope(something that definitively not applies to heroes-except in [Can't Get Away With Nuthin'] settings.)not exists any reason to create a trope similar to heroes.

Are Vegeta and Buu from DBZ karma houdinis? Before the story both were responsible for destroying who knows how many planets of populated beings without a shred of remorse. In the series itself Vegeta slew a bunch of Nameks and bragged out it later. He abandoned his son for the early part his life willingly. Against Cell he allowed Cell to achieve his perfect form and he allowed himself to be controlled by an evil magician to have the power to satisfy his pride. Yet, after the Frieza saga no one ever really calls him out on any of his crap or about how he had killed who knows how many without a shred of remorse. Does his heel face turn somehow protect him or does his past and getting the crap beat out of him numerous times count as Karma?

Pretty much the same with Buu. Does the fact Evil Buu is insane to begin wtih and later killed and Fat Buu is pretty much naively innocent make Buu not a karma houdini?

MagBas

06:25:18 AM Apr 3rd 2011edited by MagBas

Well, as you noted, Evil Buu was killed(and, considering his reincarnation- Killed Off for Real). And Vegeta was killed in the Freeza saga- of a form specially humiliating to his pride. Fat Buu, however, qualifies.

I think a picture of DW a from Arthur would be better for this trope as most of the Wall Banger examples for this show involve her so she would be the perfect poster child for it.

MagBas

10:43:23 AM Feb 13th 2011

No. DW is not one villain, by definition she can not be one Karma Houdini

DaLucaray030

10:00:21 AM Feb 19th 2011

I do think we need a different picture. As far as I can tell, it's some Deal Withthe Devil. No "Guy escapes punishment".

WhiteBear

08:16:16 PM Mar 21st 2011

DW is a brat who just happens to avoid getting punished because she's four years old, but she is not a Complete Monster who crosses the Moral Event Horizon and never gets punished for it. Therefore, she does not qualify.

When did this trope shift from being about a horribly villain who totally escapes, unpunished for their crimes - which is a nice, neat and entirely straightforward trope - to being about complaining about a character did something a bit mean and it was never addressed? One example involves a woman splashing water on a man's face, as far as I can tell. Seriously?

WhiteBear

04:06:21 PM Feb 6th 2011

Two words: Trope Decay. If there are any examples that don't qualify and is just incessant Wangsting, I would be more than happy to axe said entries. I personally think this trope SHOULD be reserved for Complete Monsters who cross the Moral Event Horizon and either get no punishment at all, or a punishment that does not fit the crime, NOT Jerkass Teenagers or Jerkass Wives. And no, splashing your husband in the face with water is not crossing the Moral Event Horizon.

MagBas

04:09:31 PM Feb 6th 2011edited by MagBas

I already cleaned the trope- if i missed something...by the way read the trope repair shop thread, or to be more exact the posts starting by post 36.

the description of the Karma Houdini trope is basically "Laser Guided Karma misses". The description for laser guided karma is that it is an unrealistic and anvilicious space whale aesop.

There are 3 issues with it:
1. If it is merely a subversion of another trope, why does it merit its own name?

2. Since it subverts the unrealistic space whale aesop by having a realistic "nothing happens" why is it even mentioned? might as well make a trope called "gravity". And naturally, because it is something so mundane there are a ridiculous amount of examples, enough that each medium gets their own page.

3. A good number of the examples actually are not subversions of laser guided karma, but an actual opposite; the opposite is where villains don't just get away with doing bad things, but they get away with doing things that there is absolutely no logical explanation how they could have gotten away with it...

I think the best approach is to amend the definition to fit #3, where its not that villain gets away, but that they get away with no punishment where there is no logical explanation on how they could escape retribution.

Westrim

09:35:26 AM Dec 18th 2010

... I can write a couple paragraphs, or I can say no. I'll just say no.

Well, maybe one. That's not the definition of karma houdini. There's a reason why that sentence is in italics; it's meant to elucidate the point, not actually be the point. Laser guided karma has nothing to do with its basis, just plain old karma. Even if it were, that's definitely not the definition of laser guided karma. It only gets to be "an unrealistic and anvilicious space whale aesop" if taken too far.

"Some authors simply grow enamored of particular characters, and don't want to see them punished or killed (even if the character did just happen to cook the heroine's button-cute little brother in a stew and serve it to her with a side of foie gras)."

I have a question to ask: What if the villain "does" get a punishment, but the punishment is so weak compared to the villain's actions that in the end they still get away scot-free, but only with a few consequences.

would thta nopt mean that Stephanie Brown from the batman comics would qualify? I mean, she caused a city-wide gang war, and while I don't know for a fact, I very much doubt all the victims of such were gang members. her punishment? noje, as far as I can determine, since the volunteer wokr in africa could be dropped anytime, and while i donlt think she4 and Tim have yet got bakc togter, I imagine it's only a matter of time. While I imagine that moots people in the US that did that would be executed. while it's a retcon she survived, it probably counts.

Westrim

01:05:59 AM Sep 27th 2010

I have no idea what you just said.

Shaoken

02:51:59 AM Nov 2nd 2010

He (poorly) said that Stephanie Brown was a karma houdini because she started a gang war that got a lot of people killed. And he's an idiot if you don't mind me saying because she didn't intend to start it, she was absoloutely horrified at what she had done and spent so much time trying to fix it only to get caught by a complete monster and tortured for most of the second half only to die at the end of it. She got better in a retcon, but still, she did nothing that put over on the evil side of the equation, let alone reach this territory.

Also stabeler is wrong that she would be executed, since she didn't intend for the gang war to start and she didn't kill anyone with her own hands she could not be charged with murder. So he fails spelling, law, and reading comprehension forever.

Added "because it's funny" to the list of reasons. One of the big ones that comes to mind is Garland Green's fate in Con Air, the scene of him getting away with his crimes was only kept in the final movie because test audiences laughed their asses off at it.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy